How much would vegetarianism benefit humanity?

[Baby Nemesis]

All of mankind's problems that are supposed to be "solved" through vegetarianism are clearly caused by overpopulation. If the human race were to manage its population in a rational manner, the bizarre doctrine of vegetarianism would be relegated to the realm of religious taboos, which is where it belongs.

What exactly would controlling the population in a "rational" manner mean - killing everyone off if they weren't proving to be a productive member of society?

See Post 52 on why the population increase could slow a lot as and if countries modernise.

The population would apparently have to decrease a fair bit though if all the world's population were to be fed on a diet containing as much meat as the current general American diet. From one of the articles I linked to in my first post in this thread again:

The numbers of people potentially supported by the global food supply depend heavily on the kind of diet people consume. The World Hunger Program calculates that global food supplies have been more than adequate, since the mid-1970s, to support the world's population on a vegetarian diet (table 3.1). But they would support only 74 per cent of the 1993 population on a diet where 15 per cent of calories come from animal foods (Uvin 1996). Only 56 per cent of the
1993 world population could have been provided with diets where 25 per cent of calories came from animal foods (Uvin 1996).

It seems that the "delicious" American meat-rich diet is contributing to hunger in some parts of the world.

 

[Prometheus]

...
It seems that the "delicious" American meat-rich diet is contributing to hunger in some parts of the world.

"Seems" being the key word. As usual, reality is quite a bit more complicated than simple appearance.

Here's some interesting info.

 

[leftysergeant]

It seems that the "delicious" American meat-rich diet is contributing to hunger in some parts of the world.

The well-to-do in Argentina and Brazil are doing serious eccological damage in their quest for meat as well.

 

[Perpetual Student]

What exactly would controlling the population in a "rational" manner mean - killing everyone off if they weren't proving to be a productive member of society?

That would work! On the other hand, we may prefer to voluntarily control the global fertility rate -- but that's just me...

 

[Baby Nemesis]

That would work! On the other hand, we may prefer to voluntarily control the global fertility rate -- but that's just me...

Well, Post 52 talks about how birth rates tend to go down a lot when countries modernise, so maybe as conditions improve in the developing world, people there will choose to have far fewer children.

 

[!Kaggen]

DHA is not necessary for survival and reproduction, though it likely provides a a selective advantage. I'd be fascinated to do a geographic study on DHA consumption and IQ or even technical innovation.Here's a recent study on teenage boys, IQ, and fish consumption



Well ... I suspect there's a reason why that report groups EPA and DHA together! Wild or "freerange" meat can be a good source of EPA, but not DHA. They are not the same thing.



And you can for EPA, but alas, not so good for DHA. I refer you to the following graph comparing grain fed vs grass fed cattle -

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_248274aa4e1e70bd33.png[/qimg]

source: Strategies for Optimising the Fatty Acid Composition of Beef (p.43)

DHA is C22:6n-3. As you can see, while grass fed beef is better than grain fed, it's still not a good source. Note that brains and liver can be a good source as that's where DHA concentrates.

Found this useful web page from CSU College of Agriculture on Grassfed Beef

http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/research/index.html

I also found an interesting research report presented at the IfOAM scientific conference held in Basel, Switzerland in 2000. I also presented a poster there. The research was titled "Impact of cattle grazing on meat acid composition in relation to human health" V. Pastushenko et al , Department of Agricultural Science, Rostock University, Germany.
I could not find an online copy and I am not sure how to upload the table from the report.
The calves muscle DHA (C22:6) were 12.29% and the heifers 10.72%. This is much higher than the report you linked above and the authors acknowledge it as equivalent to average fish oil DHA%. This is surprising and I have searched in the link I found above and elsewhere for any replication, but have not found any other study with calves and heifers fed on organically managed pasture in the summer and hay in the winter.
I did notice one study http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/research/lipid/das Gracas Padre Brazil.pdf that found significant differences in DHA levels in muscle of different cattle breeds. I think this indicates that there is more to DHA levels in pastured beef than what we currently know and perhaps breeding and eating younger cattle will lead to better intake in grassfed beef.